The Supreme Court Justices dismissed, by majority vote, the petition for annulment filed by two associations and one non-profit organization. The petition challenged a decision by the Minister of the Interior regarding the updating of marriage and birth registry records, specifically, how spouses’ and parents’ details are recorded, to comply with the requirements of the said law.

In their reasoning, they were guided by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). They ruled that the recognition of the right of same-sex couples to adopt “does not violate the constitutional protection of childhood and the paramount/best interests of the child,” while also ruling that marriage between persons of the same sex is consistent with the Constitution and the ECHR.

It is worth noting that, regarding same-sex marriage, which recently provoked political reactions as well, the Justices ruled that “the rules and traditions of the Orthodox Christian Church regarding the solemnization of marriage and the formation of a family are not affected, as compliance with them continues to rest on the free will of faithful Orthodox Christian citizens.”

In this light, the Plenary ruled that the provisions of Law 5089/2024 are constitutional and are indeed in harmony with the constitutional principles of respect for and protection of human dignity, the free development of personality, and equality before the law, as well as with the principles of the ECHR, other international conventions, and EU law. They also reflect the evolution, over recent decades, both of social and moral attitudes toward same-sex relations, and of the legal treatment of cohabitation and parenthood among same-sex couples in the majority of advanced democratic countries in Europe and, more broadly, the Western world. The dismissal also signals a move toward the elimination of social exclusion and the protection of private and family life without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

Specifically, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court:

The Right to Adopt Children

Regarding the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, the Plenary of the CoS, in its ruling No. 392/2026 (President Michalis Pikramenos, rapporteur: State Councillor Anastasia-Maria Papadimitriou), ruled by majority:

“The recognition, in favour of married same-sex couples, of the right to jointly adopt a minor child and the right of one spouse to adopt the legal child, biological or adopted, of the other spouse, constitutes, according to the explanatory report of Law 5089/2024, an immediate consequence of the recognition, by Article 3 of Law 5089/2024, of the right to contract marriage between persons of the same sex.

Under current provisions, the adoption procedure is governed by a set of safeguards aimed at ascertaining and protecting the best interests of the minor child, through the provision of (a) an investigation conducted by an appropriate social service in two distinct stages [initial suitability assessment and re-assessment in view of the submission of a request for a specific adoption] and (b) a hearing before the competent court.

With this in mind, recognizing the right of married same-sex couples to adopt a minor, under the same conditions and procedures that apply to married opposite-sex couples, does not violate the constitutional protection of childhood or the best interests of the child. These interests are lawfully assessed by the competent authorities (social services and, ultimately, the court) in each individual case, without any a priori exclusion based on the gender or sexual orientation of the prospective adoptive parents.

Procedural safeguards are also provided, by Article 11(2) of Law 5089/2024, with respect to adoptions already completed by same-sex couples abroad. Moreover, it is not required, and certainly not as a constitutional mandate, that adoption mirror the biological relationship of the child with two opposite-sex parents, so that the adoptee is raised by a mother and a father, particularly since adoption by a single person, married or unmarried, has long been permitted, and since the constantly evolving social reality includes various family configurations beyond the family founded by marriage between two opposite-sex persons.

In light of this information, no issue of adverse discrimination against children who will be adopted by married same-sex couples, following a ruling by the competent court that the interests of the minor are served, arises in comparison with those raised by two opposite-sex parents, nor is there a violation, on that basis, of the constitutional principle of equality and the principle of the protection of the best interests of the child.”

Contracting Civil Marriage by Same-Sex Couples

Regarding the right to contract civil marriage by same-sex couples, the Plenary of the CoS ruled:

“The institutions of marriage and the family are not static, but evolve over time and are subject to redefinition. Their constitutional entrenchment does not prevent the ordinary legislature from modifying the rules governing their operation. Judicial review by the annulment court, being a review of limits, does not extend to assessing the substantive correctness of legislative choices, provided that such choices remain within the framework of Article 21(1) of the Constitution. This framework must be interpreted in conjunction with other constitutional and supra-legislative principles, and in light of evolving social conditions.

The disputed provisions of Law 5089/2024 expand the circle of persons who may, if they wish, publicly commit before the State to a lifelong, in principle, cohabitation with mutual devotion and fidelity, under the terms of the law, so as to receive the special recognition and protection that the legal order reserves for married citizens and for marriage as a fundamental social institution, without otherwise modifying the rules governing the conclusion, operation, and dissolution of marriage, or nullifying the above basic elements thereof.

By extending to persons of the same sex the right to contract civil marriage—a civil institution addressed to all citizens, regardless of religion and beliefs, it does not restrict or affect the right of opposite-sex couples to marry, whether civilly or religiously, and to form a family in accordance with their beliefs. Nor does it affect the rules and traditions of the Orthodox Christian Church regarding the solemnization of marriage and the formation of a family, as compliance with them continues to rest on the free will of faithful Orthodox Christian citizens.

Furthermore, from the reference in Article 21(1) of the Constitution to the family as the foundation of the preservation and advancement of the Nation, it cannot be inferred that only marriage between persons of different sexes and the subsequent acquisition of common biological children, are conceivable as institutions protected by the State. Procreation is not a mandatory purpose of marriage, and the acquisition and upbringing of children takes place in practice within the framework of other configurations beyond the family founded by marriage between opposite-sex persons. The constitutional protection of the family, motherhood, and childhood applies to all forms of family life found in modern society, to every mother and every minor child.

Therefore, the disputed provision of Law 5089/2024 does not negate the constitutional purpose of marriage and the family, nor does it conflict with Article 21(1) of the Constitution in general, nor with Article 12 of the ECHR, which neither mandates nor prohibits the institutionalization of marriage between persons of the same sex. Furthermore, the establishment of the civil partnership for same-sex couples in no way prevented the legislature, within its broad margin of discretion, from introducing the disputed provision.

Finally, the well-established historical contribution of Orthodox Christian teaching to shaping the moral attitudes of the Greek people does not negate the evolution of those attitudes, especially in the modern era, under the complex influence of multiple factors.

The consideration of prevailing social and moral attitudes in the country, in view of the enactment of provisions touching upon issues of social morality, belongs to the power of the legislature, whose judgment the annulment court, exercising in this instance a review of limits, cannot substitute”.

The Conclusion of the CoS Ruling

In summary, the Plenary of the CoS ruled that the disputed provisions do not conflict with the Constitution. They are, moreover, in harmony with the constitutional principles of respect for and protection of human dignity, the free development of personality, and equality before the law, as well as with the principles of the ECHR, other international conventions, and EU law.

They also reflect the evolution, over recent decades, both of social and moral attitudes toward same-sex relations, and of the legal treatment of cohabitation and parenthood among same-sex couples in the majority of advanced democratic countries in Europe and, more broadly, the Western world, moving toward the elimination of social exclusion and the protection of private and family life without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

“This legislative choice, not exceeding the limits set by the aforementioned provisions and principles of superior formal force, is not subject to further review by the annulment court.”

The Minority Opinion

The minority of 6 State Councillors expressed the following views:

“The provisions of Article 3 of Law 5089/2024, by which Article 1350 of the Civil Code is amended, insofar as it provides for the possibility of contracting “marriage” between persons of the same sex, taking into account:

(a) that the constitutional meaning of marriage in our country has a given historical, cultural, and legal content [with “marriage” understood as marriage between opposite-sex persons],

(b) that adequate protection, equivalent to marriage — and consistent with the requirements of the above constitutional provisions and with the provisions of the ECHR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, was already provided for stable cohabitations of same-sex couples through the established civil partnership, and therefore there was no obligation under those international instruments to introduce the disputed provision, and

(c) that, by virtue of its particular characteristics, connected to moral, physiological, and demographic parameters, the marriage protected under Article 21(1) of the Constitution (between opposite-sex persons) is not under the same conditions as the above stable and actual cohabitations of same-sex persons, and therefore an issue of violation of the principle of equality arises from the identical legal treatment of these two situations — conflict with Article 21(1) and Article 4(1) of the Constitution.

Furthermore, decisions relating to adoption must be made exclusively with the interests of the child as the guiding principle. In this case, it does not appear that the legislature took into account specialized and in-depth studies, extending over a long period of time, from which the long-term impact on the intellectual, psychological, and social development and evolution of children raised in a same-sex family could be established and, consequently, their safe development within that context.

For that reason, the recognition, inferred as described above from Article 12(1), second sentence, of Law 5089/2024, of the possibility of adoption and, in general, of acquiring a common child within the framework of the unions of same-sex persons under Article 3 of the disputed law is not, in the same minority view, in harmony with the provisions of Articles 2(1), 5(1), 9(1), 21(1) of the Constitution, Article 8 of the ECHR, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Hague Convention on intercountry adoptions.”